Political Behavior

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 1–24 | Cite as

Issue Framing and Engagement: Rhetorical Strategy in Public Policy Debates

  • Jennifer JeritEmail author
Original Paper


Conventional wisdom and scholarly research indicate that to win a policy debate political actors should frame the issue strategically—that is, selectively highlight considerations that mobilize public opinion behind their policy position. Engaging the opponent in a dialogue (i.e., focusing on the same considerations) is portrayed as a suboptimal strategy because political actors forfeit the ability to structure the debate. Using over 40 public opinion polls and a detailed content analysis of news stories, I examine the use of framing and engagement strategies during the 1993–94 debate over health care reform. The analysis shows that engagement was more effective at increasing support for reform than framing. This study is the first to document the role of engagement in a policy debate, and it extends work showing that this strategy is more common in election campaigns than scholars once suspected.


Framing Engagement Public opinion Rhetoric 



I thank Jason Barabas, Barry Burden, Dennis Chong, Jamie Druckman, Tobin Grant, Bob Jackson, Jim Kuklinski, Scott McClurg, Travis Ridout, Frauke Schnell, and Adam Simon for helpful comments and advice. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Political Psychology and Behavior Workshop at Harvard University and at annual meetings of the American Political Science Association and the Midwest Political Science Association. Roxanne Weber provided research assistance.


  1. Anderson, C. (1994). Senate GOP leader softens stand on health care reform. Associated Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ansolabehere, S., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Riding the wave and claiming ownership over issues: The joint effects of advertising and news coverage in campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly, 58, 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austen-Smith, D. (1993). Information acquisition and orthogonal argument. In W. A. Barnett, M. J. Hinich, & N. J. Schofield (Eds.), Political economy: Institutions, choice, and representation (pp. 407–436). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bennett, W. L. (1990). Toward a theory of press-state relations in the United States. Journal of Communication, 40, 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, W. L. (2005). News: The politics of illusion (6th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  6. Blendon, R. J., Brodie, M., & Benson, J. (1995). What happened to Americans’ support for the Clinton health care plan? Health Affairs, 14, 7–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer, P. R. (2001). Value words and lizard brains: Do citizens deliberate about appeals to their core values? Political Psychology, 22, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewer, P. R. (2003). Values, political knowledge, and public opinion about gay rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 173–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brewer, P. R., & Gross, K. (2005). Values, frames, and citizens’ thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26, 929–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Budge, I., & Farlie, D. J. (1983). Explaining and predicting elections: Issue effects and party strategies in twenty-three democracies. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  11. Carsey, T. M. (2000). Campaign dynamics: The race for governor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  12. Charemza, W. W., & Deadman, D. F. (1997). New directions in econometric practice (2nd ed.). Aldershot: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Chong, D. (1996). Creating common frames of reference on political issues. In D. C. Mutz, P. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.) Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 195–224). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication, 57, 99–118.Google Scholar
  15. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2008, forthcoming). The influence of democratic competition on public opinion. American Political Science Review.Google Scholar
  16. Claassen, R. L., & Highton, B. (2006). Does policy debate reduce information effects in public opinion? Analyzing the evolution of public opinion on health care. Journal of Politics, 68, 410–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cobb, M. D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1997). Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 88–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cook, T. (1989). Making laws and making news. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  19. Druckman, J. N. (2001). On the limits of framing. Journal of Politics, 63, 1041–1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. Journal of Politics, 47, 729–745.Google Scholar
  21. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
  22. Eckhom, E. (1993). Solving America’s health care crisis. New York: Times Books.Google Scholar
  23. Edwards, G. C. (2003). On deaf ears: The limits of the bully pulpit. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Edwards, G. C., Barrett, A., & Peake, J. (1997). The legislative impact of divided government. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 545–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Entman, R. M. (1989). Democracy without citizens: Media and the decay of American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Erikson, R. S., MacKuen, M. B., & Stimson, J. A. (2002). The macro polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Graber, D. A. (2001). Mass media and American politics (6th ed.). Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gross, K. (2004). Framing emotional response. Political Psychology, 25, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hacker, J. S. (1997). The road to nowhere: The genesis of President Clinton’s plan for health security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hammond, T. H., & Humes, B. D. (1993). What this campaign is all about is... In B. Grofman (Ed.), Information, participation and choice: An economic theory of democracy in perspective (pp. 141–159). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Herbst, S. (1998). Reading public opinion: How political actors view the democratic process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (1998). The role of the press in the health care reform debate of 1993–1994. In D. Graber, D. McQuail, & P. Norris (Eds.), The politics of the news (pp. 110–131). Washington DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jacobs, L. C. (1993). Health reform impasse: The politics of American ambivalence toward government. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 18, 629–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jacobs, L. C., Lawrence, E. D., Shapiro, R. Y., & Smith, S. S. (1998). Congressional leadership of public opinion. Political Science Quarterly, 113, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jacobs, L. C., & Shapiro, R. Y. (2000). Politicians don’t pander: Political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Jacobs, L. C., Shapiro, R. Y., & Schulman, E. C. (1993). Poll trends: Medical care in the United States—An update. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 394–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jacoby, W. G. (2000). Issue framing and public opinion on government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 750–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jerit, J. (2004). Survival of the fittest: Rhetoric during the course of an election campaign. Political Psychology, 25, 563–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones, B. D. (1994). Reconceiving democratic decision-making in democratic politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  40. Kanji, G. K. (1999). 100 statistical tests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Kaplan, N., Park, D., & Ridout, T. (2006). Dialogue in American political campaigns? An examination of issue convergence in candidate television advertising. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 724–736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kernell, S. (1997). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  43. Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E., Westlye, M. C., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Kinder, D. R. (2003). Communication and politics in the age of information. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 357–393). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Kinder, D. R. (2007). Curmudgeonly advice. Journal of Communication, 57, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1996). Divided by color: Racial politics and democratic ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. King, J. (1994, July 7). Dems spoof Harry and Louise—And lash out at insurance industry. Associated Press.Google Scholar
  48. Koch, J. W. (1998). Political rhetoric and political persuasion: The changing structure of citizens’ preferences on health insurance during policy debate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 209–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lakoff, G. (2003). Framing the dems: How conservatives control political debate and how progressives can take it back. American Prospect, 14, 32–46.Google Scholar
  50. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lau, R. R., & Schlesinger, M. (2000). The meaning and measure of policy metaphors. American Political Science Review, 94, 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lee, T., & Schlesinger, M. (2001). Signaling in context: Elite influence and the dynamics of public support for Clinton’s health security act. Typescript, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  53. Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Marmor, T. R. (1994). Understanding health care reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Mayhew, D. R. (1991). Divided we govern. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Nelson, T. E. (2004). Policy goals, public rhetoric, and political attitudes. Journal of Politics, 66, 581–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nicholson, S. P., & Howard, R. M. (2003). Framing support for the Supreme Court in the aftermath of Bush v. Gore. Journal of Politics, 65, 676–695.Google Scholar
  58. Numbers, R. L. (1978). Almost persuaded: American physicians and compulsory health insurance, 1912–1920. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  60. Page, B. I., Shapiro, R. Y., & Dempsey, G. R. (1987). What moves public opinion? American Political Science Review, 81, 23–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Petrocik, J. R., Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2003). Issue ownership and presidential campaigning, 1952–2000. Political Science Quarterly, 118, 599–626.Google Scholar
  63. Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Riker, W. H. (1990). Heresthetic and rhetoric in spatial models. In J. M. Enelow & M. J. Hinich (Eds.), Advances in the spatial theory of voting (pp. 46–65). New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  65. Riker, W. H. (1996). The strategy of rhetoric: Campaigning for the American constitution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Scarlett, T. (1994). Killing health care reform: How Clinton’s opponents used a political media campaign to lobby Congress and sway public opinion. Campaigns and Elections, 15, 34–37.Google Scholar
  67. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  68. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  69. Schrott, P. R., & Lanoue, D. (1992). How to win a televised debate: Candidate strategies and voter response in Germany, 1972–87. British Journal of Political Science, 22, 445–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sigelman, L., & Buell, E. H. Jr. (2004). Avoidance or engagement? Issue convergence in U.S. presidential campaigns, 1960–2000. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 650–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Simon, A. F. (2002). The winning message: Candidate behavior, candidate discourse, and democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Skocpol, T. (1994). From social security to health security? Opinion and rhetoric in U.S. social policy making. PS: Political Science and Politics, 27, 21–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Skocpol, T. (1996). Boomerang: Clinton’s health security effort and the turn against government in U.S. politics. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  74. Stimson, J. A. (1999). Public opinion in America: Moods, cycles, and swings (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  75. Weissert, C. S., & Weissert, W. G. (2002). Governing health: The politics of health policy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  76. West, D. M., Heith, D., & Goodwin, C. (1996). Political advertising and health care reform. Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 21, 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Zelman, W., & Brown, L. D. (1998). Looking back on health care reform: “No easy choices”. Health Affairs, 17, 61–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations